tv U.S. Senate CSPAN August 8, 2011 8:30am-12:00pm EDT
we should make sure you're not confronted with that, and that's part of what these proposals will help lead to. >> host: the flip side are the critics who say the white house's proposal didn't go far enough, that it was just creating a voluntary set of standards for business, particularly critical infrastructure. and they say, well, you know, if this is truly infrastructure that's critical to our security, why isn't the government just simply telling them what they need to do in order to, you know, protect national security. i mean, what do you say to the people who raise those concerns that, you know, this isn't really that enforceable? >> guest: and if it was strictly voluntary and nobody else cared about it, i'd probably have that same concern. but those same businesses i mentioned earlier, we have business needs to do better security. they know they're doing business with the other company or the government hinge on doing the right thing. so once again, there's an imperative for them to do it. >> host: but that imperative has
existed for years, and it hasn't gotten the country where it needs to be otherwise we wouldn't be doing all of this. >> guest: and i agree, but i don't think the awareness has been there. the business need has been there, it's let's build it, roll it out and then secure it later on. i think there's a full recognition now that businesses can't continue to do business that way. it's too competitive. so when you look at this voluntary regime we proposed on the legislation, they have to prove that they're doing the right thing not only to us, but to the public at large. and what other, what better way to drive a business and say your customers out there know that you're doing the right thing or you're not doing the right thing. that makes it more than just a voluntary effort that we're woo putting -- we're putting forward. >> host: and finally, now that the proposals are on the table, legislation has been introduced or up in congress right now being looked at by committees, what about your future? are you planning on sticking around at the white house to see this through or home to seattle? >> guest: well, i serve at the pleasure of the president, and
best i can see there's no shortage of work for us to continue to do in the future, so i look forward to continuing to serve the president and, indeed, move these things forward he's put on his agenda. >> host: howard schmidt, white house cybersecurity coordinator. thank you for being on "the communicators." intelligence correspondent for "the wall street journal", thank you as well. this has been week one in our four-week series on cybersecurity. next week two members of congress on the legislative proposals, mac thorn berry, republican of texas, jim lang min, democrat of rhode island. >> next on c-span2, british journalists talk about political unrest in syria. then misperceptions about miranda rights a topic at the annual convention of the american psychological association. and later cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin is among the participants in a discussion in how technology is changing media
coverage in the courts. >> history of america's top secret military base. then jennet conant talks about julia child in her book "a covert affair: julia child and paul child in the oss." after that edward lengel discusses the story behind the chopping down of the cherry tree in "inventing george washington: america's founder in myth and memory." booktv in prime time all this month on c-span2. ful. next, british journalists and middle east analysts discuss the anti-government protests in syria. this program, which includes a question and answer session with audience members, was hosted by the london-based front line
club, a charity organization that promotes independent journalism. it runs about 90 minutes. do start on time. we know how busy you are, and we end at 8:25, and we've got a lot cover, so i'm not going to say very much at all except to encourage you, please, this is your meeting. if you're not getting a briefin. or you're not hearing the other side explained, please stay early. don't wait until 8:25 and say you were disappointed, say it at 7:02. i've sat in too many audiences bored, and we intend to discuss this life-changing issue properly which means with you telling us where you want us to go. of we do intend to keep our discussion in four areas. obviously, we'll end with predictions, but the three other ones are update on the situation on the ground, the protesters, theedic regime. everybody.ster could i ask you, panelists, please, to introduce yourself,lm and would you give us in ak th
statement that is short your question or your briefing for us you most wantr us us to know at this critical time starting with you, malik? >> thank you.>> my name is malik al abdeh, i'm chief editor of a syrian optician television station based in london. i'd like, i'd like to fme t debon frame in a way that i think is accurate, in a way that i think best reflects the reality ground. >> which is? >> that is not a struggle betweenpposition and the government,ut between the what flourish. >> sue? newsnight."
>> can you hear? no? >> my name is sue. i think i was the fst broadcast journalist to get into after the trouble began. is a point that the burmese monk once to me, can any revolutionary movement, can any people succeed when the government shows an insatiable and consistent appetite for and murdering its own people? >> my name is daniel. i am a freelance journalist. was the deputy editor of the current affairs magazine in damascus. >> do we have an application? if so, let's put it to use. >> i will speak up.
i worked as a freelance i in the mid february. what i'd like to talk is the growing movement and syria. -- the growing movement in which may be disorganized chaotic and have many different elements to it, but there is a movement of people of the world to and do everything they can to understand. consultant in the u.k. as well. i came from damascus 10 days ago. i% the point of view that the best way forward for syria is to keep the current government and have a change from within.
that so of the violence has intensified a. -- has intensified it. it has sent the wrong messages demonstrators, and now syrian government, even though it has many points to declare, cannot give it to everybody else in the world. what i would like to talk about today. >> my name is chris phillips. completed the international identity in syria, which involve me living in syria for two years. i could talk about the economic situation of people want to, which can probably be best as absolutely dire, but what i would like to race to the issue about
sectarianism in syria. i met many people who would that sectarianism is not prominent in syria as the media wants to portray it, but i am very worried about recent reports of attacks on different groups, and i would like to raise that point with the group. >> thanks. coming with this question. would it the two journalists best view, an update, if you are locked into news, the security council, if social media reporting during the meeting. will you situation is and other cities? start, sue. the army has fought back the regime, has fought back.
they estimate 140 fatalities and many more wounded. little enclave, how syria could government themselves before the army decided to move in. been an explosive month for syria. in syria, it could be arrested group of people meet in a place, which is why it ramadan, when thousands go to their mosque every day, it -- it is a chance to demonstrations. this is what had happened, and the army was waiting for it to happen. and they retaliated in a brutal way. week -- >> sorry, what we want to hear you, daniel. give him a microphone.
close. start again. >> i was in the country last week, and at the time it was part of this enclave, if you would call it. there was no security on the streets, no military, no police. the streets were full of young kids, among barricades, standing in the streets. mostly, they were carrying sticks and so on, but there were kids, mostly teenagers. evidence of violence, there are weapons all over syria. syria, it is very easy to get hold of guns and ammunition, but
people have not used them, or on occasions people have used weapons. now remains have security, torture, and they have not full insurrection. at the tank put down? >> i think we are in the first week of ramadan. regime, after ramadan, if the regime emerges than what it is now, then i think we could very well the beginnings of a civil war in syria.
the slogan from the beginning of death over ty." there is no going back, as far as they are concerned. they know if things go back the work, there will be a network of informers. however, after ramadan, if the regime is visibly weaker, i think it could spell the beginning of the and thend. >> chris phillips, but do you agree with this assessment, the whole arabs bring it is into three weeks in syria? the uprising succeeds in three weeks? say the entire
condensed. certainly at a key juncture, the gloves have come off by the regime. he is some kind of reformer, some kind of character who is not willing to use violence. clearly been involved and willing to use force. in for civil war to break out, you need another side, you need people fighting back. one of the reasons that the peaceful movement is taking that slogan is they know full well if ever there is a regime, if ever there is justification, . it is not like libya, where
of the with hardware switching sides. the update of the situation on the ground, so i will come back to that. what is your view? you said you did not want a change of regime? what is the critical nature of now, in your eyes? wait over. the civil war is already starting. my humble opinion, this is the regime has toughened up. if it had not, the other side matters into their own hands. that is my perception. syria right now is very much pulverized. in damascus the past 10 days, since when i is myself during the 1980's growing idolizing the president,
idolizing the military. that is how diehard supporters are being reared at the moment. feeling is there are problems. homes, there has been a lot of sectarian tension. me the people on the do not listen to the of the other people. >> is the regime right to now? that if they did not, people into their own hands. >> if they do not, people things into their own hands. >> anybody else? yes, you, madam? you would like to use the
microphone. . find now one single sectarian by syrian activists. you to parts equally. it is a regime empowered by extreme force and civilians fighting against it. reform coming from within the regime -- >> what is your update, what is happening? is it three weeks to decide be syrian uprising? >> no one can know what the future will happen.
will it. think that is realistic. on the now? how is the situation right now on the ground? media, we don't know. we don't know what is going on. slogans of were there from day one. many. seen them, we have heard them, and if they are not reported to you, i don't know who your sources are. second, a lebanese colleague of hamas and he said is the kind of part of syria.
the media is not reporting. >> how can we if we are not invited in? >> look, some bbc journalists did. >> not buy a vacation. invitation. views. thank you for giving yours. it is largely your fault. that is not true. with sectarian slogans. the people he is referring to honest, going to the sunni majority, that is simply not true. 1971, when the
hamas, they about 30 sheet for the president. but put that to one side. >> the protesters have been keen not to do anything that might be interpreted as sectarian. calling sectarian languish describe the population that way. bombarded the bombarding the hamas. update of situation on the ground, but panel wants any part of that? we want to know your updates. have you missed an important
point? sue? you mentioned one. of sectarianism and the country. i have heard sectarian slogans demonstrations, anti-regime demonstrations. they are perhaps maybe one person and the crowd shout something, everybody else says, not what we are about. are here as one people against the regime, and this is feeling. >> when we talk about the vision to look at the various divisions. of them are economic as well as sectarian. i was speaking with various people, and it was interesting, but sectarian violence that took place took place in the poor neighborhoods, a recent economic to the city involved.
it is not the establishment that had been a longtime, the class, it was a small segment of an economic strata of society. is often missed by the media. that there war blooming or under are casualties in the city, but you don't want change, the rest of you want change. we will come to the regime in a moment, but for now we'll talk about the protestors. you have been living in damascus, daniel, as a westerner. who do you think the protesters are? has the right to tell us who they are? the second part, i think the only people who have the right determine who they are are the protesters themselves. as i mentioned before, it is a disorganized movement, and different actors, different people involved. are exiled groups to have with networks within
syria. there are also local coordination committees who over become organized but began as a groups of mostly men. there is a women's movement. it is an entire spectrum of people's movements. sue? a movement of discontent. make a basic point, forget the of syria and indeed much of the middle east. 60 percent of the population are under 30. the perception i got from some to in syria frustration status quo, corruption, the inability to get jobs without bribes or knowing the right people. they get very impatient with the
government's paranoia of always outside forces. i was told time and again, the discontent, the humdrum of every day. >> how these disparate groups communicate? social networks, al-jazeera english was an influence in egypt at the time. how are the groups in syria communicating? facebook, social twitter, and also of communications, arranging and coffee shops. , there is not a coherent organization. >> how would you answer the question, who wore the protesters? top-down revolution at all.
embryonic stage, civil in syria. have emerged syria, first at a level, the which now they are organizing on a city wide or level and now a national level. the young people in syria, but also women's groups. been very active in revolution. active figureheads in syria at the met are women. -- at the moment are women. a very diverse mix, but i comes under the
of civil society vs. the the regime. describe the battle in syria at the moment. >> free people against militarized society? >> absolutely. , said, who for dignity reasons they did not policeman anymore. equal opportunity in on, so you have these factions. faction that is think, from the outside. with regards to this particular certain on the presence. example, when i was in damascus and a couple weeks driver said -- we
restaurant, and there was a demonstration, pro-government demonstration at time. the taxi driver said, don't you think this is provocative? some people are dying and the people saw the burning in the streets? said, yes, well, some of those out on the time seeking to much. at the end, we may not get any democracy at all. . dignity. but there is the economic problems.
a lot of people cannot find a job. that does i will have an opportunity to express my skills. i will have to be friends with someone. >> are you saying people are because they want to be engineers? >> no. they're frustrated. >> wire they putting their lives line? >> they want a regime change. >> that is their right. is feared how the change regime, from the inside? -- it is. how do you change the regime, insectinside? you know? i know what people tell me.
is on the street but who is not the street. there are a key geographical regions. the uprising. is the question. they uprising, it cannot possibly proceed. >> why are they not joining inde in? they say they do not like the regime. we did not like them in power. we will not there out are lost opposition and so we convinced where it will go. is whether the military and forces will stay there. three options will happen now. e crack down.
senior officers. this was quite close to this. there were towns that were hits. about one month ago. there's a parallel army. who knows if this will go away. >> the problem with the military is that the machine has a bill. it was designed there. they separated the powers. they're all spying on one another. the high positions. that means the chances of it
affecting it is far more diminished than the bottom level. is far they using the for the republican guard. be fiercely loyal. fight to the death. they are largely being used in widespread ones. what is interesting is whether not you get multiple sources uprisings. >> thank you. in terms of international reaction, these are the things that could happen.
>> somebody else is shooting atm them. >> so if the army are shooting people, do you think they are right to do that? >> they are not shooting at the ow' people. the arm the army and the security forces are shooting at each other. that's absurd. somebody shooting at the army very early on with an ambush in the army. on my route, i still can see, i machine-gun posts on the bridges where the ambush took place. all.at overwhelming video evidence for the deliberate killing of innocent people, women and children. a 10-year-
girl who was shot. there's a very graphic video. we showed it anyway. the reality of what is happening in syria. it is very difficult. cannot alwayhear y >> we can't always who you. i will give a microphone. if you want to answer his his question? >> i will not, i will not for a minute suggest that the
revolution was started almost five months ago, has been 100% peaceful. i would say it's 95% peaceful, were as the government's reaction has been 100% violent. that's the difference. i am being honest and you are not. s ithis ismall question. i wonder why state television felt the need to remove the sound when it showed a video of people being thrown into the river? >> i can give you an update for what we shown on state tv during the trial this was reported by the bbc. they have not been shown. we will move on to the regime of. it is common to talk about this. down to a family. >> they are quick to answer that.
security army forces together. before it would have been wrong it is wholly dependent on the family and the various clans surrounding that grew. there are one or two exceptions. not that many. one more thing about theone more reformer turning out to be overwhelmed. it's quite possible he was overwhelmed but i would add this. bashar received no training in l politics.it went through the process of the fairies whose to learn how to rule in many ways. bashar never have done that.
a good match our batman. not able to control the situation. in egypt no regime in egypt has survived without army supportas since 1925. a in syria who runs the army? the shah's brother-in-law. other people who have i people. agree with you. president came to power he came people. they made a sort of change at the time. father's team is still in there
and they did not listen to his father even anymore.t one of them is closely related. can say that. when there is a mass of people. when we say regime, you go from the top prime minister position. to the lowest level. friend. >> anyone would have been a should bashar and others stay in power?>> g you 10,000.>> >> is that something the regimes made up to scare people? to >> one of the reasons why, this was touched by chris. aside majority is not take into the street. the streetsken to
such circumstances is not because they cannot see a light from inside because i cannot see and what you tell me these are al they talk about is freedom, democracy.democracy. there are very key questions, very simple questions. >> i don't think that answer the awake is during transition [inaudible] >> no. but having mentioned that i think the way things are going because i've seen it with my own eyes because of the polarization years, if it goes into one
winner and one loser. >> how much is the salary from the government's >> huge. >> very brief. one of the most popular charges in syria is, people cursing him and he is dead. he has been it that for 11irst years. wn i think that the first time they have cursed someone who has died prior. the province a is not bashar al-assad who is an individual who might be a very charmingste. man, you never know. but it is the system that he has decided to live with and continue and so far killed 2000 people. so the problem industry is the system. expthing else into deadly which laexplains why there have been very, very few defections or even diplomats who haven't affected, stayed in the job.
unlike and libya would've been mass mass defection very quickly, the golden rule which anyone who is loyal him, anyone loyal to the regime, he was loyal to that person.there. so if you're a minister, you mis could be minister of defense for 30 years but, in fact, that's what happened. defense minister for 30 years. so people who are in the government, people are baath party members, they know they will never use theirer job. they are quite comfortable, public salary, public sector ere is a they were probably use their job in democracy. people of the fact because they are completely ineffectual and not contributing to the economy. so people remain loyal to do that for a variety of reasons. and yes, people who are on the one hand, militiamen if you like, another extreme to an youh
islamic scholar who is very loyal toad the president who sad it's okay to bow down to the thesent. so it's a wide sector people have been co-opted by the regime. >> coming to you next it is a possible that bashar believe serious? >> no. and precisely, someone who came from hama, he said the the widespread feeling among the people actually runs the country isn't bashar are even not even the family, but what they call a council made up of representatives of the major clan, and their the ones who decide the fate of the country. >> should the entire corleone family be blown up? what comes next? is there an opposition in this court but very desperate, nots a organize, not coordinated, not a process that we've seen in lib
libya, a question for as a different question for another time but there is a process that should the regime fold, that i'g an argument to justify the preservation at the current regime, that that vacuum that follows is a very dangerous space. so what follows the regime?ollos >> would you like to comment onu this, starting with you,ld dani? >> i think this is an idea which from the beginning was put out there that what else is there, this regime, gennaker one of the things the regime always based its own is a strong position. it's like him has grown its roots around society. nothing goes on in syria without something touching the regime, some corruption, something. but i think most of the protesters i know that i spoke to have had enough, and to be honest, most people say they don't have time to think aboutht
what willim come after and theye willing to try that than risk keeping this regime for another 40 years. >> i've been impressed by thede. democracies that you are receiving syria during the protest, the local coordination committees, at the ground level. a lot of syrian folks are quite proud of what they've achieved so far. you describe the scene in hama. is anecdotal or is it true about the part of weapons left to be collected by the protesters in order to confirm the myth that they are armed and the other ones who i think violent? and a message that says by the committees don't touch them come is going to create a situation and give you a reputation that you don't want and you don't need. so give them a chance, haven't didotch experience in the itmocratic process but it could be a bottom-up process what they are seeing. >> what happens next? what happt >> i think what's important, you
can answer that question until you find how the regime falls. one thing that is difficult to work out is exactly what is the mechanism by which this regime does. they say they are trying hard to separate the army from the security forces. they're trying to stage a coup. the problem get a situation where they go beyond the armed forces. probablyy, they're trying to protect as many assets as possible. if that does not happen, but there's some sort of violent confrontation. do not underestimate the ability for a conflict to change the
objectives of people. >> we have that from pro- democracy people in egypt. it is another army person. what about the deaths >> it had a democracy for a while. >> what could replace their aging? let's there is the type of that we have. it should be game on. the re-emergence of civil society has an alliance between businessmen and clerics. >> who could believe? >> i could name me some names. we will be free of elections.
>> we're very much occupied with three or four people at the top of the regime. they are not the regime. the regime as hundreds of thousands of people. if you kill the president and his brother, that is not changing the regime. >> to you think it has the capability to that minister a whole approach that is it too late? -- to administer a whole approach? is that too late? >> several top members of the government are backing off from what has been done. they were tricked. since then, if they have had to live in exile.
if israel didn't exist the regime couldn't stay in power.y. it is the excuse for everything. the damascus spring was finished al-shabaab was a godsend. he is a rabbit. it really is a huge benefit tov. have it show that if they didn't have the rain.what your question yes, i agree., i y from a military perspective but they are afraid of the syrian people. what they're really afraid of is hama and central damascus because they wouldn't be able t. contain it. trying to stop is speeded it's the second time youd have drawn our attention to this. you are saying this big s it.ided middle, that's what
every -- >> 50% of syrians live there. you a very small protest so far. if you get those people out, day in indiana, perhaps, perhaps there was one made before about the billy for him forces toto cn content, that's too greater number to suppress. >> quickly. i keep hearing over and over ovr again. what th demonstrations iney those areas to go to those areas. -- there was
>> syria is a part of a chain goes there. another important link in the chain was libya. if no one said anything about that might impact syria. will lose some support? there is a three legged stool. could this affect the regime? this to be something by the opposition. >> how was the economy doing? was the economy supply, they're
about the regime. you keep mentioning the economy. to give this a briefing? not in good shape at the moment. bad as making out. they like to get a narrative with all the money running out. the currency will devalue. you're seeing a decline in economic ability. consumption is down. all this was through the roof.
they probably do not want it to fall. wi we >> we are now going to go andllo talk about outcomes but let's go around the room. i mentioned at the beginning, ii you're mingssing things we camen and hoping to hear some things, no now.o that then we'll go to possible pos outcomes.ou but your questions first and then you in the middle, then yom the back a question that relates to the future.
>> people told me they were protesting. people then received enormous phone calls. they said their relatives. they're telling them they have to get your people in london to lay off. it has to stop people from doing that. >> we did a report. it has serious repercussions. what about scholarships and travel bans sex with you just answer this question that we're
was interpreted by threatening. they're calling things down. they know people personally. >> we heard you. i think he is a diplomatic one. that happen. >> it is someone who was that what he does not go around intimidating. i don't think he ever stepped out of it. >> there's one very d tel acquisition about the behavior. we're moving around the audience. the do not need to be disappointed. >> the action is sold the
regime. what support do the protesters have? >> there the king to make it about a fifth of all employees. there is a war that they will run out of money in it that they do they have to pay the security forces that do. i do not know what they were to do. >> i would delegate that. i would not want to come in on the deficit.
>> this is something i heard from protesters when i asked the question that journalists always do. i heard time and time again that is playing into their hands. this is our problem. they have intended the recent protests. others say no. it allowed them to go by former colonial power. >> can anybody comment on how
the rest of the economy is being affected by a reduction there is a complete collapse in tourism. can anybody comment on the position? >> i just wanted other times. they're running out of money. after the 21st of june, there were demonstrations. they are refusing to go to the city. they are checking everybody. people are trying to take their exam.
>> they were not on this. their outside shooting in. it seems pretty unpleasant. do you think that the government could go further? you have to be brief. >> as winning if the government could do more. >> do you think it is a surgical military response? >> they have not the least the full potential. they do a lot more damage. i think they're willing to fight to the debt. -- death. they know if the regime falls,
is there anyone on the panel that wishes to disagree with that statement? keebler saying that there will not be any. it will appear to dig people are saying that there will not be any -- people are saying that there will not be any. >> turkey might bring it to a bubble on the northern part. >> i'm not being rude. what do you know about it? is it because of the refugees stopping there that they have to make some kind of response? >> is a not be entirely for the benefit of the syrian people. we do have the issue of a lot of refugees.
turkey does not what trouble to spillover. we're coming to the conclusion. would you like to give as an outcome? >> i am depressed. people talking that they did not want outside intervention. we have seen a largely ill- equipped protest movement. government has prepared to put it down. they have nothing to fight back on. and did not think it be the outcome for most of them. >> do you think there are more skirmishes in which they are killed by this tax we're not
these attacks were isolated. the debate should be difficult for the army. it is hard them to remain there. >> do you reflect what we have heard decks t? do you think that might have been? >> if a suddeassad is not emerge winner, and do not see how it would be strengthened. i owed reminded that there is historical flavor.
and of the underground movement is well developed. what people feel as if the government will do some of the political situation. >> i would forecast the situation. they have a lot further to go. this is what they can stomach. i think it will grow. they will not reach the critical mass. there will be some kind of
internal tcoup the problem with the opposition is about that there leaderless. local committees, based on region, will have to solve the deal. that will be difficult. >> we have heard all ideas members did not respond well to. a daily limit would be your word. >> the regime are not as stupid as a lot of people make up. they are aware of international opinion. they're also aware of how many gaddafi killed, and feel that
after a certain number international opinion turned quickly. there is an issue with the number of people who are seen. >> you do not have a microphone. we're going to give you one. yes you do. there are people watching all over the world. >> i have a question. who supports these armies? how are they employed? how'd they control the demonstration? how many%, after five months, are in it? how many have accounted? >> it is quite a lot to get
through. you're saying there are many military but not many protesters. would you like to follow that? >> the last five days, estimates of about 3 million protests, 24 million who risked their lives to demonstrate. the answer would be to hold a free and fair election. i think that is the best thing to do. >> and said you could ask this lady a question. you can after the panel. there will be time. we have heard a great deal from the panel tonight. iraq is selling discounted oil. turkey may cross the border. the protesters are desperate but determined. we have heard predictions of status quo. i hope we have had a full airing of views.
i would like to thank the panel for giving us a briefing, for helping us an inch further from understanding the situation. thank you very much. >> just ahead, a university of north texas psychology professor talks about the public's perception of miranda rights scflt later cnn legal analyst jeffrey too bin talks about evolving technologies changing how the media covers the courts. live coverage here on c-span2. >> today the center for american progress hosts a discussion on the influence of the african-american vote in 2012 and beyond. speakers include maryland u.s. representative donna edwards who co-chairs the democratic congressional campaign committee project called red to blue. the event airs live at noon eastern on our companion
network, c-span. next, a university of north texas psychology professor discusses what he calls the misperceptions and false beliefs of miranda rights and the role of the media in public perception. this event hosted by the american psychological association is about 50 minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is ron resh, i'm from simon frazier university, and it's my pleasure to introduce the recipient of the 2011 award for distinguished contributions to research and public policy, richard rogers. dick, as he's known to his friends and colleagues, has a distinguished record of contributions to forensic psychology, but it's probably worth noting that he started out on quite a different path. as his first intended career would have been as an english
teacher. somewhere, though, along the way -- and fortunately for us -- he became enamored with psychology, and he eventually found his way into graduate school at utah state university. and there he worked with professor e. wayne wright where he conducted his dissertation research on self-disclosure. following his ph.d., dick initially pursued a clinical path of a clinical psychologist first at the maximum security center, chester mental health center in illinois, followed by a position at the department of psychiatry at rush medical school where he's one of a small group who formed a training and research facility known to many of you as the isaac ray center. now, this was a very productive period for dick as he conducted the research that led to the publication of the rogers' criminal responsibility assessment scales. and also along with his colleague, james kavanaugh,
created the journal behavioral sciences and the law. it was my good fortune that in 1984 he came to canada, to toronto which that's where i first met him. he joined there the clark institute of psychiatry at the university of toronto, and he began there to pursue his decades-long interest in malingering ask response styles. in 1988 clinical assessment of malingering and deception was first published. this very influential book was recognized by the american psychiatric association which honored him with an award. he also developed the structured interview of reported symptoms, is sirs, during this period, so it was a good, productive period in canada. but in 1991 he decided to leave and return to the united states to take up a faculty position in the department of psychology at the university of north texas. and there he helped build an
exception alkaline call psychology doctoral program, and he's remained there where he now is recently named the regents professor. and i want to say i know that many of dick's students. he's been an exceptional mentor to his students, and, in fact, it's worth noting that three of his student were recognized by national awards for their early career contributions to research in the area. and dick, of course, himself is well known for his many contributions to the field including the assessment of malingering, the insanity defense and competency to stand trial. the work that he's done in all of those areas was recognized by another award he received from apa some years ago for distinguished professional contributions to applied research. in the past six or seven years, dick has focused his research on
miranda rights, and he's published numerous articles on this work. his most recent, in fact, i was privileged to publish in the journal i edit, psychology, public policy and law -- you'll find it in the may issue of that journal. there's free copies of that may issue, actually, available in the book area. he expects to publish a book that, i think, will do a nice summary of the many years of research on this. the book will be called "the standardized assessmentment of miranda abilities," and it's expected to come out next year. and today he's going to focus his talk on that miranda research. so i'm very honored to introduce to you richard rogers. [applause] congratulations. >> thank you so much for coming. i really, i truly appreciate this. it's so nice to see both friends and colleagues and students, so
i very much appreciate that. i need to -- see if that doesn't work. all right, here we go. i'd like to begin on a bit of a solemn note, and that is that one of my close colleagues in terms of miranda research, dan schuman, as many of you know passed away several months ago. and he was a close collaborator both with myself and with others, was a co-principal investigator on my nsf grants, probably one of the best collaborators in terms of mental health. i had the privilege of working with him on two separate books, but i think just a power in this area. and there's a picture of dan. so it's to him that i would like to tribute this talk. in an increasingl litigious society, i also have to
acknowledge in receiving grants from the national science foundation that, in fact, if you like what i say, they are greatly appreciative. and if not, i am asked to say any opinions, findings or conclusions or recommendations expressed by the material of the authors do not necessarily reflect the views of the national science foundation. i recognize that today is a bit of a divided audience. i recognize, clearly, some distinguished researchers in terms of miranda and scholars in that particular area. however, there are perhaps more folks who as psychologists and industry professionals for whom are just interested many this topic or just came here for moral support for me. so i'll try to take pote of those populations -- both of those populations into mind as i'm making this presentation. i'd like to focus more selectively given the time restraints that we have on some
of the important issues, challenges and dilemmas which are faced in the work on miranda evaluations. i'd also like to pay attention on a few occasions to what i consider some unsettling issues, those are problems or issues that i think we need to grapple and struggle with. and my hope here is to motivate more research and public debate on these important topics. most of you, perhaps, have not seen a picture of ernesto miranda. i highlighted the o in it because he was required to use an anglicized version of his name in terms of the records and court reports of him in the 1960s. survivor of sexual sexual assault described him as a hispanic in early 20s with observable tattoos and dark-rimmed glasses. several days later she was unable to recognize him in a four-person lineup.
we'll see how well you guys do. i think it becomes somewhat clear that, in fact, and as my wife pointed out, it's very interesting that the only person with a short-sleeved shirt happens to be -- i don't know if my -- do you notice the tattoo on the side? so giving, giving, i believe, the witness every benefit of the doubt. in fact, it's with the exposed tattoo, with
>> he admitted to the sexual assault in this brief account. he also, by the way, signed away saying that he gave up his rights with a full legal understanding of what those rights were, although they were not explained to him. just spend a moment or two kind of on the miranda decision itself. as you can see, it was a closely-held decision, a 5-4 decision. chief justice warren is the
person who wrote the majority opinion. no one can ever criticize the supreme court for being brief in their comments. i will just quickly go through this, but then i have the essential comment on the next slide. he must be warned prior to any questioning that he ha has a right to remain silent, you can hear these words, can't you, now, in terms of law and order. [laughter] that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to him prior to any questioning if he so desires. opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. so really for that there are five basic components; the right to silence -- this is a point we'll come to later -- to a constitutional protection against self-incrimination is what is meant by a right to silence.
the perils or dangers of waiving the right to silence, the right to counsel, the provision of free legal services to indigent suspects in the ongoing protections of miranda rights. just a quick commentary on a couple of the major points here. actually, the miranda decision did not require that you give the miranda warning. it said that you need to give the miranda warning or any other fully effective means. so, in fact, as they were envisioning and exhorted, by the way, the legislatures to consider other options. i mean, one option, for example, in canada you have a duty counsel who can be called up on an 800 or toll-free number. so we have that as a possibility. the supreme court, also, was clear to affirm that you needed the right to silence because otherwise silence in the face of an accusation is itself damning.
and perhaps of the greatest interest to us here was a later decision of the supreme court, california v. presock in 1981, in which they said there's no special words that are needed, no special words that are needed in the giving a miranda warning. and because the courts allowed more poetry than the typical researcher, they concluded that by saying there are no talismanic words in trying to figure out how to use that phrase. i published some of my research, i think it could be helpful. of course, the unintended consequence of this is if there's no words that are necessary, then all words are possible, and we'll see that in just a moment. i think miranda can be looked at from five fairly distinct areas which, obviously, overlap each other. the most basic is vocabulary. if you confuse, as we'll see in
a few minutes, if you confuse the word indigent with the word indicted, clearly, this shows a problem in terms of understanding the warning. the second is comprehension. and this is simply tested by looking at does a person have the ability to recall. retention, by the way, retention's become more important with recent decisions where a person could, in fact, be given the warning hours, potentially days before and then be considered warned at the time in which they make an incriminating statement. ones which we'll focus more on today are higher level of cognitive including misconceptions, the idea that silence could be incriminating and reasoning. can the person kind of deduce the best action for them based upon what their goals are? things will get more interesting
here. we'll spend just a few minutes on the lower levels ofmy ran da impairment, then we'll turn to the primary focus of today's talk which is looking at impairment in terms of misconceptions, impaired reasoning and ignorance. miranda vocabulary, it's actually been very well researched but with limited coverage. some of the work is done by tom grisso in terms of the miranda vocabulary, the follow-up of that by may chromemy goldstein. some of the work out of our research shop on the miranda vocabulary scale. it's a fundamental issue here. if you don't know the words, it's pretty difficult to grasp the meaning of them. if you don't know the words as they apply to miranda or legal situations, it's pretty difficult. so a common mistake is the word
terminate. we've run into almost no criminal defendants who don't know the word terminate. what they think of it is killing. understanding terminate as ending or completing task is an entirely different issue. so that really forms, if you will, the foundation for miranda understanding. when it comes to miranda comprehension and when i talk about the public view, these are just informal observation of mine of, in fact, from talking and giving workshops to a variety of different audiences about how people often times do view issues of miranda. i think -- and, remember, i referenced just a few minutes ago -- i think people believe i've been exposed to that so many thousands of times. everybody knows their miranda rights. and everyone knows it because they know it's the same thing. they know it's the same thing
because when they hear it, it sounds like it's the same thing. trouble is, it isn't. so one, the first issue here is the myth of uniformity, that, in fact, it's wherever you go the miranda warning will be just about the same. indeed, nothing could be further, i think, from the truth. we looked at and did two large national surveys of miranda warnings covering about a third of the counties in the united states and found 888 unique warnings. you know that that's not the answer, don't you? because the other two-thirds i am confident they didn't let us down. i'm confident there are hundreds we did not discover. terms of juvenile warnings, these are warnings written specifically for juvenile offenders across two surveys. we have collected 371 unique warnings. now, if you're like many people, you're kind of thinking to
yourself, isn't this really kind of much ado about nothing? i mean, come on, so there are these different warnings. it must be a word here, a phrase there. it can't be really that all-fire different. this guy's, you know, making this thing out to be more than what it is. well, i think one benchmark is to look at word length. so you look at word length, general warnings are those written for persons of any age. the warning itself varies in the length from 21 words to 231 words. the total material, this is the total material presented including the waiver, ancillary information, it's about double that, isn't it? 49 to about 547. now, juvenile warnings are actually written longer on purpose. they typically are 35-100 words longer than those for adults. and the reason for that is we try to explain things to them in more detail. we actually make them more complex and try to provide them
with more detail, so it's not surprising that the warnings themselves range from 23 to 526, and the total material from 58 to 1,130. i thought that deserved to be highlighted. somehow that seems like a contract lawyer, doesn't it? three to four pages of solid material this person's supposed to understand. i think the public view because we tend to think of these things as being very simple and straightforward, i think the public view of this is that they're easy to read. they're so simple, they're easy, also, to read. the standard benchmark for looking at this is the flushing-cage reading estimates which revise, interesting, the level not for 100% comprehension, but for at least 75% comprehension. that might not be enough if i'm putting together a gas grill, the you think about it. not getting it all might not be
a good thing. if we look at that for that benchmark, the general warnings range from great to the postcollege. requiring further advanced college education. the juvenile warnings are actually a slightly higher level. remember, we wanted to give them more detail, more explanation requiring between grade 2.2 and postcollege. here, i think, is a bit of an unsettling problem. first of all, when you look at juvenile offenders, and this data on thousands of juvenile offenders, they typically read -- and these are 16-year-olds on average, so it would be less if they're younger than that -- between 5.8 and 6. these are just averages, excuse me, medians over a period of about five years and following up on the day data of that. one thing that is critically important is we cannot, in fact, look at the level of grade which
they, quote, completed. and many times this is more of a social promotion than anything else. in the any way consider that to have any relationship to, in fact, what is their reading level. that happens frequently in some legal circles. roughly speaking, they read about four years below their grade level. if you look at just to focus on one set of the population, the most recent complete data we have is from 2009, data from 2010 is preliminary at this point. these numbers, however, are underestimates because some crimes are not included in that list. well, if you look at before i showed you the averages, but the fact is over half of the warnings for juveniles are written at eighth grade or above. 5% of them require some college preparation.
so you have a kid who is 12 years old receiving a warning that requires some college education. i think this is an unsettling issue. i think it's unsettling because whatever your beliefs about people should have constitutional setting, safeguards, the sense of fairness about it is if you're giving them a warning, it should be something they can understand. so, roughly speaking, perhaps 200,000 receive a warning which is far beyond their grade level and far, far beyond their reading level. okay. you made a big deal out of that, right? what about oral comprehension? come on. everyone can understand things that are being presented to them. here i gave it to you as a cumulative percentage. so almost all of the miranda material is at least 75 words long. 86%, 125 or more, but i think a
good benchmark is two-thirds. well, two-thirds of them have 175 words or more that the person when given an oral advisement is supposed to take in and understand. the average, just the average warning materials is 213 words, a very conservative estimate is 26 concepts with the terms of that. how does that compare to what we would expect? so here's what i did, and some of you are familiar with the wexler memory scale, so we'll see immediately where this comes from. what i looked at is what is the very best you can expect from well educated adults? so these are those adults who are considered to have superior, not above average, but superior memory abilities. when given a concept, when given comprehension oral recall of 75 words with 25 concepts, in fact,
that group gets only 72% of them correct. i think this is a rather, again, unsettling issue. if brightest and the best of adults really achieve even a 75% comprehension, there's something here that needs to be fixed. well, what about spanish? there are hundreds of thousands of spanish detainees who are, who have been arrested annually. what about that? well, we looked at 121 jurisdictions, and i'll just give you a very quick summary. terms of awkward usage among these, about 12%. in here it's just an example instead of saying can you afford an attorney, are you economically permitted yourself a lawyer? it may be a bit awkward for many of us. i think something which is very troubling which is the fact that in roughly 3% of the cases part
of the miranda components were missing. now, when i say they were missing, i want to be clear about this. these are jurisdictions where we have both the english and the spanish, so these are peer-wide comparisons. you might say, gee, that's difficult to do, but those of us who do the research know you just take the card and flip it over. it's pretty straightforward in terms of testing it out. when it was on the english, it would be missing n some cases, particularly the fifth prong on the spanish. it really cries out in terms of fairness and equal protection. and although rare, the mistranslations sometimes comic are also tragic. i won't try to pronounce the spanish. that would probably give you a very light moment if i tried that. but, in fact, the spanish translation is you have the right to remain white-washed. something about that does not seem like it quite captures the constitutional protections that we
we all desire. now my focus is going to shift over to the kind of higher components of cognitive thinking in terms of misconceptions, false premises and impaired miranda reasoning. but, first, just a moment in terms of historical perspective. tom grisso is best known for his work in terms of miranda reasoning, but he also did some seminal research which really examined, i think, for the first time in a systematic way some of the important misconceptions. i knew tom wouldn't be here today, he's in australia apparently, i think, giving some plenary talk, so i thought it was safe to put up a picture of him. that was a rather nice picture of tom. he looked at with juvenile offenders, and he does have some data on adult offenders, but most of his work has been on
juvenile offenders. in terms of the right to silence, 60% of them believed, you know, you can exercise the right to silence, but you'll be punished if you do it. you'll be punished if you go against adults. now, the issue of revocability, i'm a parent, now a grandparent. we know a bit what that's like when you change your mind and you're in a position of authority, but you're bigger, stronger or perhaps more verbally skilled than your kids, you revoke them. i change my mind, i take that back. it's not surprising that, in fact, a number of juvenile offenders will believe, oh, yes, you can give me that right to silence, but you can take it back whenever you want to. and particularly with the judge, that doesn't make it a right if i can take it back, if i can take back your toy, if i can take back your constitutional safeguard. it also addressed the issue of the right to counsel. and why is it that come wants information -- counsel wants
information? is it because they want to help me, or is this information that they will begin to share with others? i think this slide's a little bit busy, but 28% be believed that that information could then be used subsequently against them. so you have to ask the question, why would i want counsel if they are going to become a weapon that will lead to my, to my being found guilty and sentenced? and finally just a slide, i actually discovered this for the first time as i was rereading the 1981 book, and it looked at people's reasoning for why they would make the decisions that they would make. it's interesting, and it's narrowly involved, but the police don't know who he is, but it's one of several suspected folks involved. should you talk to them and kind of tell your version of the events? only 26 correctly reasoned that
volunteering this information would be incriminating and could lead to their conviction. the others had less articulated reasons. and then just as the final point, we go from a minor charge to here felony murder, about the most serious that you can get, only 38% considered asking or exercise being a right for miranda. a good reason to do that would be so you can get your legal ec per tease in terms of a defense counsel. and 24% still believed i'm going to get punished somehow. there'll be a negative effect on the disposition, the judge or the court will deal with me in a harsher way if, in fact, i ask them. so this is some of the early seminal research which i think really is something we, perhaps, have lost attention to but is still essential issues today. the picture there, by the way, i had a picture of tom, so i thought i should put up a picture of me. i actually gave an interview -- i see several people recognizing
immediately that that is myself to a brazilian law magazine, and they were so gracious to me by publishing both the interview as well as this rendition of myself in it. goes to show what we do sometimes. in all of the work which i'm talking about, the l should not go unnoticed or unappreciated. there are individuals who have worked very, very hard on this, particularly my doctoral students, but also a number of colleagues around the country. and on, particularly, this project which involved using legal experts, people like eric trogan from harvard, chuck weisselberg from berkeley, so we had a number of legal experts. so what i'm about to tell you about miranda quizzes, in fact, wasn't based upon my own poor knowledge or perhaps misknowledge of legal issues. simple little miranda quiz, 25
items, looking at really what are the common misconceptions primarily intended for detainees, but i've found it works. you'll be allowed out today. but, no, found a number of people have real basic misbeliefs. and for those that like psychometric things, it appears to be reasonably reliable and have content validity. we wanted to look at miranda misconceptions really taking into account both reality and what i have labeled here as fiction. reality was 149 detainees awaiting trial. fiction or what we might consider the best case scenario, some will call this upper bound estimate. this is as good as it gets as far as we know. i think that just provides an interesting comparison for college students who are reasonably intelligent. certainly more than reasonably intelligent and under no stress at the time this occurred. right to silence, is this a protection or just a choice?
i can eat my broccoli or not eat my broccoli. is it something more than that? in fact, the defendants and college students both were in the 30% range. does practice make it perfect? 20% of those that had gone through the rest stage at least ten times was the average, it didn't seem like it got any better with practice. is my waiver to silence permanent? once i give it up, is it gone for good? again, you'll see the defendant a little bit higher, but we're looking kind of still in the 30% range in terms of getting this wrong. believing once it's gone, it's gone. how about false premises? this is really kind of interesting, i think. if i don't sign the waiver, i mean, this works in some places, right? if i don't sign the car contract, you know, can they hold me liable for this? is it only when it's signed that it's good? that about, about half of the defendants got that. excuse me, 30% got that. if i ask something to be off the
record, that's where over half the defendants got that wrong. i can ask for it to be off the record. anything you say can and will be used. i think it's pretty clear in terms of most wordings of that warning, anything that you say. anything, and it doesn't matter what you think about that. it, in fact, once a supreme court decision held that your actions can be held against you as well as your -- nodding, would it then be seen as an affirmative response? so warnings always say you have the right to counsel, you have the right to remain silent until counsel is available. some warnings actually will explicit about that. again, about a third of individuals believe they can keep on interrogating me until counsel arrives. and there clearly are some jurisdictions where it's probably -- [inaudible] let's be conservative and say for days they could actually continue to interrogate you if you believe this before, in fact -- so the idea of, in fact,
if you ask for counsel, they stop interrogating you. so this belief could easily lead you to the wrong conclusion based upon what your needs are. does indigent mean formally indicted? no. here it shows where our college education, maybe it has had some lapses. in fact, we're doing something right, right? half of the defendants thought that was the case in which case you're not formally indicted, you can't get legal counsel. see how the logic works. 17%, i think that's a little bit embarrassing, but 17% of college students fell into that group. how about withdraw your waiver? withdraw your waiver? this is something which, by the way, your waiver is oftentimeses not labeled a waiver. so the waiver is would you care to tell me your side of the story. that was the waiver. your waiver was when you say i agree to that, did you know that
you were at that time wave -- waiving your rights when you say yes to that statement? that was a waiver. if you don't know that's a waiver, then how could you possibly withdraw something that you don't know what it was in the first place? i think that raises a conundrum. college students do slightly worse at this than, in fact, defendants do. how about false premises? the police have to tell you the truth, right? the police can't lie to you about stuff. we know they can't lie to you about stuff. how about lying to you about eyewitness? notice in the miranda case that's exactly what happened, right? the police according to the police version lied to them about this. in terms of getting that wrong, again, we have substantial percentages. can they make up extra charges? can they make up fictitious charge against you so you can say, hey, i'm going to cut my losses, right? they're only getting me on this one armed robbery. there were six of them, but it looks like i can just go for one. that seems like a great deal
until, of course, the others are fictitious, and can there's not even a robbery that took place. well, adding it all up how many people are winners? those of you in the room, i imagine most of you are college graduates and will be thrilled to know that the students one out of 20 aced the test. not so good, i don't think, for your pretrial defendant. in terms of the percentage of these who, in fact, failed only one or two of miranda, some people might consider that a bit much. you'll see the percentages there. actually, again, the college students did better at that. and then not to beat this into the ground, but who were the complete failures, who failed every single piece of it? well, 10% of the defendants and be 4% of the college students. well, let's move on now to miranda myths. maybe it's just because they're not intelligent is why, in fact, these people have such great difficulties in terms of miranda
misconceptions. really not true. those numbers are tiny. and it's how you divide it up. above 100, below 100, i just thought these were convenient numbers to provide you with. maybe it's the lack of education. the 1967 supreme court case said we should take into account the person's abilities, their past experiences and things of that nature. our look at this, i did not provide you with data suggests, no, not the case. but what about the miranda warnings? because, you see, it doesn't really matter how many misconceptions you have if the miranda warning themselves are able to get you out of the problems, right? so that you are now relieved of your misconceptions -- well, i probably should stop there. you've already read the slide. yes, they improved. they went from 70 to 72. it's not significantly different as you might expect. slight improvements in terms of silence, free legal services and
general misconceptions. they didn't do so well in terms of evidence against you or attorney. and after hearing the warning they actually had further misconceptions about police deceptions. there were more faithful that, in fact, the police couldn't lie to them having heard the warning before. not sure that's exactly what we're trying to achieve. well, maybe psychological impairment is the cause. and again for the sake of simplicity, i just put up one. we've looked at this for a variety of different ways. the fact is it really has nothing to do with it except in the relatively small number of individuals who have psychotic disorders or others. so you could say in a very small group of individuals, this is significant in the great realm of things, this does not explain what's going on. critical issue, a critical issue is when a defendant says i
understand. what does that mean? well, the united states, the supreme -- i'm sorry, in the sixth circuit case, united states v. banks in 1996, they really held and said the most clearly affirmative responses to the query, do can you understand, can be construed as strong evidence of accurate miranda understanding. we will actually tackle this in a slightly different way in a couple slides under the issue of metaknowledge and metaignorance. but i think what it does is overlooks a huge area, particularly along mentally-challenged defendants. it overlooks acquiescence, the people who have learned i don't know what's going on, i just nod and say, yes, and the world will take care of me. it overlooks that component completely. let's talk about -- you know i have to get to meta-ignorance
since that's in this. metaknowledge is what people have done most of the research on, do you know what you think you know? it's mostly done with clinical populations. the results suggest people are not as accurate as they think they are. but meta-ignorance, i found only a handful of psychological studies looking at this particular concept, do you know what you don't know? and i think that's different than know what you do because some things you can be pretty darn certain of, and those you'll get right. other things you'll be less certain about -- how well those things you don't know do you know that you know them? some of you will probably need an alcoholic beverage to fully sort it out, but i think, in fact, that is a critical issue in looking at that. and, again, we get back to the mantra of i've heard it a thousand times and the confusion between familiarity and accuracy. well, i have a little bit of data on the meta-ignorance approach. these are the people who either
were very knowledgeable about this, not so knowledgeable. and this is did they make any areas at all within terms of those groups because i do have one slide that shows you average. well, it seem like, in fact, in terms of making errors on evidence, attorney and continuing rights those i've conveniently highlighted in gold or yellow, the fact is you see there is a modest difference. unfortunately, for free legal services the trend's in the opposite direction. but i think far more important than that is notice that whether you think you do or not, 60% is the threshold. in other words, large majority of people are getting each part of this component wrong whether they say they understand or they don't say they understand. i'm going to let that one slide. so let's look at the conclusions about meta-ignorance.
i think the good news is -- i guess it's good news, there's about a 10% difference when you say that you know versus not know, but the bad news is better ignorance is alive and well and, in in fact, most defendants don't know what they don't know in over half the cases. and this has profound implications for miranda cases where the guy says, i understand, and the courts automatically accept that as being accurate. one little comparison here i thought would be of some interest to you. we looked at what really makes a difference. we tried to look at people without miranda, problems with miranda concepts, this is defendants, versus substantial numbers. unfortunately, as you can see there was none, so this is looking at a large number of these 10 of 25 versus the remaining groups which still is a substantial number. and going through a bunch of data, i'm just going to give you the three kind of key issues
here which would be in terms of verbal intelligence. we broke that down really by impaired below 85 versus at least average which would be 90 or above which are temporal discounting. we don't have time to really get into it, but it is, in fact, the person who weighs very heavily the immediate consequences over the long-term results. so a person who is willing for coffee or a smoke who, in fact, is giving an incriminating statement that might put them decades into prison is very prevalent among populations. many of these guys are very impulsive. you can see how that might happen. and then did they ever stop to consider what the alternatives were. not sure, i know that's a little bit small for you in the back. i mean, this is not a test if you have visual acuity, but verbal intelligence, you'll notice, really carries the day, doesn't it?
that if you have significant problems with verbal abilities, the likely hood of which you'll fall into this in terms of substantial level of miranda misconceptions is really substantially high. for those above, in fact, if you do not engage in temporal discounting, notice only 5% fall into that group. some of you are clever about this, will notice i don't have all of the different groups and possibilities here. we limit it to those we had at least samples of 20 because if we have very, very few people in a particular group, it becomes unstable at that time. all right. the last substantive issue that i'm going to address is what some of you might consider a bit on the to hem call side. i'm going to put forward the concept of a professional neglect hypothesis. and be to illustrate it, hopefully painlessly, with just a few numbers. we've got 9.2 million adults
arrested in the 2009. data by gary melton and his colleagues someplace between 8 and 15 president of these are severely disordered, probably having questionable competency to stand trial. some pretty extensive work that my colleagues and i did with half of those with these issues of incompetence to stand trial also have issues in terms of likely miranda impairment. also 2-3% of detainees have mental retardation, and about half of those are likely to have miranda impairment. all right. it's too late in the day to do that, but consider -- in other words, take the conservative estimates, take the lower estimate of melton which is about half of the higher estimate, and just let's leave out those who are mentally challenged completely from this. got about 360,000 adult detainees with probable miranda impairment. look at the jules, about 1 --
juveniles, about 1.5 million. some work done with ron resh, in fact, has looked at this. it varies by age. but using conservative estimates, i had them up there, and i realized your eyes would begin to droop if i gave them to you, but 300,000 would be a very conservative estimate at that time. based upon some extrapolations from some work done by colleagues in 2007, i think an optimistic number would be there are about 5,000 miranda waiver evaluations annually. so there is the disconnect, something which i consider to be quite an unsettling issue. we think in terms of notice i'm not saying they are miranda-impaired, but probably miranda-impaired based upon ative estimate, probably about 600,000. and we're doing less than 5,000. no wonder about why this happens. and i think this is, i think, one potential explanation is, in
fact, this is an area we've just overlooked for the reasons we've outlined today. everybody knows it, you'd have to be dumb as a post to use a texas phrase not to get it. and that is, in fact, only the -- >> and we leave the last few minutes of this discussion now, take you live to the newseum in washington, d.c. for a talk about news media and covering the courts. it's hosted by the conference of court public information officers. >> formal part of our meeting. in the our discussions earlier, it seemed to me we were all leading towards, in one direction and that is the thought that traditional media's either disappearing or shrinking, and we need to find out ways to use various tools to reach out to the public. and that's what we're going to talk about today. and we have with us four real authorities to share information, and can they all work in that traditional news media business. but i think you'll hear that that even has changed quite a
bit. jean poll zinn sky will introduce our panelists. there's information bios and additional resource material on the conference web site. jean is the senior vice president and executive director of the first amendment center. he has worked in all three dying industries, newspaper, radio and tv -- [laughter] >> thank you, david. >> so be sure to hire gene, right? [laughter] gene was one of the founding editors of "usa today" and subsequently served as the washington editor and managing editor for sport bees. most importantly to us, gene is a real sincere and valued friend of this group and everything that we do and has been for more than a decade. he was the driving force behind these series of programs that we have had with judges and journalists around the country and really through gene's efforts significant bridges have been built between the two professions and, i think, both have benefited because of it.
also gene and his assistant, ashley hampton, have provided invaluable assistance and support and hospitality for this conference. as you probably know, we're meeting in some of the most desirable space in washington. i urge you to step outside or look out the window, um, and we appreciate gene and ashley's support. and i'll step aside now and let gene get started. >> thank you, david. the dying industry today. well, i think we'll try to keep some of them alive today, but it's great to have you here. welcome to the knight conference center and to the newseum. we're glad to have you here. we're going to talk about a subject that i think all of you know very well, so we're going to go to your questions fairly early in this session because i think it's really about a conversation today. and we can all sort of explore a topic that you see from your perspectives, we see from ours. one of the things that i'd like to do to start us off is we produced a series at the newseum on the future of news, and we have a short clip of some, of
the opinions expressed in that series if we can roll that clip, please. >> we're in the middle of a massive transformation of journalism, and it's just beginning now. >> the old order is basically gone. the new order's not yet in place. >> can print news survive this digital revolution? tina, what do you think? >> i think print is in crisis, and we're still doing triage. >> there is a sense that newspapers are dying overnight, and that's really not the case. the sky is not falling, but it's a little shaky. >> this online journalism came in a very fast packaged vehicle. it turns that next page of the news. we see it consuming even more news online. >> the problem, of course s the two-thinged sword. there's a lot of junk there. >> this idea of what is credible ultimately comes down to who do you trust? who has been trustworthy? >> the most viable thing in this business is credibility. and you blow that, and people
don't want to trust your stories. >> when the people formerly known as the audience use the tools that they now have to inform one another, that's citizen journalism. >> i really do have a problem with blogging where somebody's in a basement, you know, having pancakes delivered downstairs by their mother, and at the same time they're bringing down a government. >> if you look at the history of this country, the first amendment -- not by accident -- >> cuts to the newsroom make us less nimble and less responsive, but i believe we still have it or else i wouldn't be in this profession. >> or as we saw recently in iran, it's people on the streets of tehran capturing protests when the old media or, sorry -- [laughter] >> and it used to be the revolution. >> we were the revolution, and now we're going to have to reinvent ourselves and continue the revolution. >> well, joining me on the dais today moving from further away, rim ryder who is editor of senior vice president of american journalism review;
ayely shah shepard -- alicia shepard for national public radio, and george stanley who is managing editor and vice president of the milwaukee journal and sentinel which i would note has won three pulitzer prizes in the last four years. so, rim, if i can start with you, perhaps, moderator's prerogative right off the bat. the session is titled state of the news media today. rem, state of the news media today and perhaps even tomorrow? >> well, state of the news media today is kind of a mixed picture. it's easy to be in despair about a lot of things, and as we see if not the collapse, the real retreat of traditional media, yet at the same time there are a lot of exciting new ventures coming forth. and as one of the people said in one of the clips, we're kind of early into this revolution. it's hard to know how it's going to play out, so it's easy to say we don't really have a business model, what are we going to do?
we took a look at the magazine recently to try to put some numbers on some specifics to see where journalism is, and we looked at investigative reporting, statehouse reporting, foreign reporting and coverage of washington agencies. not so much the president or, you know, things like the debt ceiling circus, but the meat and potatoes stuff. and there was a constant theme in these pieces, big retreats as you would expect, sometimes bigger than we even thought they would be by traditional media. small number of upstarts, many of them nonprofit. and yet, and some bright spots by traditional media. you mentioned george's newspaper which is an example that, you know, i don't think we want to rule out the traditional media completely. there's still a lot of good work there. >> alicia, we've stuck you representing the entire broadcast industry, if you don't mind. interestingly, in the pew study that was released in march looking at the state of the news media, even cable television audience began to decline.
but radio, audio services i guess as we now call it, is building an audience in some ways. and certainly, npr has had a strong core audience. what's your view of the state of things today? >> well, i think this is a great time to be a journal journalist. i think it's so exciting. we're in the midst of a digital revolution, and there are so many opportunities. i get really tired of the dying news business. the platforms are changing, the news business isn't changing. and npr has almost doubled its audience in the last ten years from, you know, 13 million to now 26 million. so there is a hunger for that kind of qualitative, credible, trustworthy, good, solid news. and i think clarence page made that point that there's a access pool of -- cesspool of information out there, so you have to go to trustworthy news sources. and those are people that you've
either come to know or you know people involved in the web site. but the danger, to me, is the younger generation that doesn't know npr, doesn't know that nbc is a trusted news source and gets their information from, you know, some blog. i mean, i don't buy chris matthews, you know, people in the basement stuff. i think that's an old saw. but i do think that media literacy is going to be the key challenge for this coming generation. how do you know what to believe? >> george, you and i share roots in the industry that probably is most often seen as on the ropes, and yet you found a way to do the kind of reporting that not only wins prizes, but wins readers. talk for a moment of your view, if you would, about where we are in the state of things today. >> i agree with, um, what alicia said about it being a very exciting time and a lot of opportunity there as well and that we're not dying.
um, i think we're going through a very difficult time in all the media, and some media are yet to face this, some of the broadcast media what they are going to because of the change in technology. um, the, you know, everything from craig's list taking away classified advertising, offering it for free to pandora, you know, being your -- building your own radio station that's suited to your own taste. and it's hard to compete with free. so, um, and like alicia said, our audience has never been bigger. if you combine print and digital audiences, it's bigger than it's ever been. we'll have four million page views on a busy news day which is huge for a paper our size in milwaukee. but we haven't figured out how to get money from the digital part of that audience. and that's the part that's changing and evolving. and when you're going through
these real tough times and it's a combination, i think, of the worst recession we've seen in our lives and, um, and the changes in technology coming together at the same time that, um, you know, it really forces you to adopt or die. you adopt or perish. and be what we've -- and what we've decided to focus on at our paper is, and we talk more than we ever have to our users and readers through twitter and facebook and everything else, um, what can we do, what can we do of value to you, for you that you can't get anywhere else? the what kind of news and information that you can't get anywhere else, and what can we deliver to you better than anyone else can? and those areas for us in the wisconsin are breaking news because of the size of our newsroom and using social media, um, as both sources and, um, everything else. and to deliver the information. and, um, investigative, in-depth journalism which is getting tremendous response from our readers.
and, um, also beat expertise from everything from the green bay packers to covering the courts to covering city hall. we're the only ones still doing that. so those are the areas where we're really focusing our attention and our resources. and when alicia brought up the younger audience, um, i think that they will come along too and are coming along, and a great example with npr is "this american life." >> that is not produced by npr. but okay. >> it's distributed by npr. >> no, it's public radio, but it doesn't matter. >> but either way it's a public radio program that's exceptional and has a gigantic young audience for great narrative journalism. >> you know, that actually brings up a point that i think for younger listeners, viewers, readers and users -- i think we all have to say now -- the platform or the source on the platform is a little bit less important than the product. that you identified as a public radio program be.
and if it's produced by somebody else, it's vetted through npr in that sense in terms of being a quality program. there's a certain npr label that goes with it. and, you know, i think that's something that news organizations didn't worry about because it was staff-produced. the networks began to farm out and hire freelancers a lot earlier than most other television networks, a lot of other media. but it's really becoming more and more ironic, i think, in an era where there's a perception again that journalism is on the ropes. the content is becoming the thing. it's less important be where and who -- where and who produces it although i think there's a credibility aspect of npr, your paper and, rem, you would see it across the range in media. credibility. our own survey at the first amendment center, we do a survey every year called the state of the first amendment, and we ask certain questions every year since 1997. one of those is, concerns bias.
and we've been consistently getting the last few years about two-thirds of the american public sees bias in news reports. now, at the same time almost that same number sees a role for the press as catch dog, and if you just -- watchdog, and if you just ask is a free press important, you get 95%. those sometimes seem at odds, but how do you all deal with the issue of bias? >> as the ombudsman at npr that's primarily what i dealt with in terms of what the job was to be the public advocate for the listeners, explain the listensers to npr. i came to learn what we have now is a very fractured media, and people really listen, read, watch through their own personal beliefs. and so what they see as bias is you're not on my side, you're not advocating for me. and that suspect the role of the nude -- that isn't the role of the news media. so i think it's a specious
complaint. no matter, i mean, within ten minutes once i got a complaint about the same story that had to do with the arab-israeli conflict, and one was npr's nothing but national palestinian radio. ten minutes later, npr's the mouthpiece for the israeli defense force. the same story perceived through the same lens -- >> that's a really versatile news organization. it could be both. [laughter] >> you know, we've had one interesting thing in the last few years, and it kind of spins off the bias question. there are a lot of people who agree with lisa that where they talk about bias, they're really saying you didn't come out on my side. and what we've had with the rise of cable and the internet and i think fox news takes a lot of the credit or blame for this, we're developing a world where a sizable number of people only go to news outlets that kind of preach to the choir, that reinforce their views. so you have people who get their news from fox that go to the
drudge web site and listen to the rush limbaughs of the world. and for a while it was pretty much a right phenomenon. now we've had equivalents on the left with msnbc which sort of was going nowhere through most of its existence and kind of has found a niche a as the left alternative. the huffington post, a huge and successful aggregator that also does its own content. and i think that's kind of troubling, that with the more that happens -- and it kind of, you can see the reflection in our politics. and i guess they both come from the same source. we have two sides in washington not talking to each other, and you have a big slice of the public who are listening to only what they see as their own news. >> george, how -- that's, to some degree, a national phenom. i've always wondered how does that play out in the regional and local level when you're talking about bias?
>> very much the same way largely because there's business models around that now. um, there's local conservative talk radio just like there's rush limbaugh. and it's, it draws a niche audience, and people sell it to advertisers. and there's local foundations and organizations pushing political candidates on both sides that do the same sort of thing. there's more and more of these kind of shadowy groups that kind of are doing a form of watchdog journalism. actually sometimes they will break stories, although they're coming at it from a very strong political perspective. another trend that's come in somewhat reaction to this that i think is a great opportunity for people like us that, um, just want to get where the truth is and not worry about the politics is, um, fact-checking groups. and we're part of the politifact network ourselves, and it takes
a lot of resources. you know, it took three people to establish it, including a pulitzer prize-winning reporter. there's a lot of resources going into that fact-checking operation. >> you're checking claims about, well, really any campaign claim at that point? >> campaign claims which have been intense in wisconsin since the last election and through this year. and advertising, but also anything involved in the political initiatives process is up for grabs including talk radio and things like that. but, um, it's got enormous positive response from readers. probably the two things that have gotten the biggest positive response from readers the last several years, it's a more positive response than in my career i've been in this business for more than 30 years now, and i've never seen responses this positive toward us. and the two big things are fact checking and watchdog journalism, the real serious, in-depth investigations. we had one investigation last
year or two years ago into subsidized childcare scams, and so far that's saved the state of wisconsin taxpayers more than $100 million, the fraud that we uncovered. and that's really delivering news of value, and readers really respond very strongly to that. >> i think the fact-checking thing is really a positive step because i think a valid criticism for years of traditional media is there was too much on the one hand, on the other hand. somebody would make a charge or maybe a valid charge, the other side would respond, and you could walk away and call it a day, and you'd leave the reader saying, what? and the sense was to be objective you have to do that, and to me that's kind of silly. what you need to do is what these fact-checking outlets do and something i think you see in more reporting now where you reach a conclusion, but it's based on the facts. this is the actual truth of it.
and i think, you know, there's a lot of excitement be, there's a lot to mother about this -- deemployer about this -- deplore about this time, but that's one of the really positive things we're seeing. >> rem just brought up based on the facts, and one of the troubling things i see is whose interpretation of the facts and what are facts? just look at the s&p and whether it was a $2 trillion mistake, i mean, and, you know, i have lived through the juan williams firing at npr. he recently wrote a book, and he was giving his side. well, those are his facts, and that's what he said, i want to give you the facts. well, you know, i know the fact to be different. so, and most of the reporting that's done is that i've seen all on juan's facts. and, you know, that's partially npr's fault, but this' the problem is it really takes a lot of digging to get down to, you know, what is the truth of the situation. and the truth is always more nuanced.
i mean, juan williams wasn't fired because of one thing he said on air. you know, it was much more complicated. but that's the narrative, and no matter what happens now, that's the narrative, and it's hard to put that down. >> you know, and of particular interest, i think, to this group who, of course, are responsible for getting information from are the courts out to the public is that the trend has been in some ways, and certainly started, i think, in the local tv is not to do the institutional news, not to go to the institutions that provide facts, that have a case where you can read things that have been filed, you can read the opinion, but move to more sort of lifestyle, softer subject matter. and yet what i'm hearing is really the future of news to some degree at least, or a large degree is in these kinds of factual institutional accountability kinds of reporting. is it that we're just seeing that that trend sort of ran its course along with a lot of other pressures and has managed to sort of peter out now at this
point, and we're going to go back to more institutional, more accountability kind of reporting? >> i think that, um, there's a news organization will always do some of both, entertaining and informing what's serious news. that's part of our job. part of our job is covering entertainment, the arts, things like that. but when you're covering general feature issues, there's a lot of options out there both online and on tv and everything else. hgtv and all the type of things they offer that we used to put in our feature sections which people can find anytime they want to. so with our smaller staffs, if we're going to have smaller staffs, what are we going to focus our attention on? and that's going to be the stuff we can do that nobody else can do. >> let me give just a few numbers to maybe put in perspective on some of the subject we've talked to, again, according to the pew study on
the state of the media in 2011. the projection for this year is to lose somewhere between a thousand and 1500 jobs in the industry. that doesn't sound like great news other than you look at the trend where one year, i believe, or over a couple of years we lost 11,000 jobs in total in the news industry. it's on average 30%, newsrooms are 30% smaller than they would have been in 2000, so roughly a decade we've lost 30% of the staff, and that, i think, probably folds in some smaller papers where the reductions were a lot less than 0%. 30%. because some newspapers have certainly experienced more than that. nearly half of americans, 47%, actually, now get some local news no longer through a traditional medium, but through a mobile device; a phone, an ipod touch or ipad. and those numbers are going up dramatically. if i remember the information from the study correctly in december, the number of people
who were getting -- or had access to a ipad or phone, it was four times higher than it was four months earlier. so that pad explosion is just a new trend. other than the internet, every other platform saw a decline inr holding steady or going up for a long, long time. and for the first time in 2010 more people got their news from the web than from newspapers. and newspaper circulations were projected the first six months, i think, of this year to go down and, again, national average of about 5 percent. there's been a slow decline not entirely out of the newspaper. >> is that balanced against increased readership on the web? are we talking about subscriptions or the actual paper product? >> i think it's a 5% decline in the actual sale of the paper product, but the trend was to see people going to a web-based product which, again, might be your web site rather than, you
know, somebody else's site particularly for local and regional news. >> right. i think that's one of the most important things out there is to recognize that the newspapers despite all their woes have a much larger audience for their news than they ever did before because many of the sites are among the most popular on the internet. >> i had an eye-opening experience where i get "the washington post" delivered every day. my son one morning picked up, he was 22. picked up his laptop and read a story at his home page about what it's like to live on minimum wage. he came downstairs and was talking about that story. he never would have -- he would have walked by that newspaper all day. but, you know, he got the story. so it's the delivery systems that are changing. i mean, the real problem is how do you make money out of that. if you get ten cents for an ad versus $100 for an ad in a newspaper. >> that pesky revenue thing seems to show up in all of these discussions. >> that first stat you talked about is a significant one, that
30% reduction. because i agree with alicia and george that it is an exciting time. a lot of things are being created, there are a lot of things much more available for journalists and new forums and be new, exciting new platforms, new web sites like probe publy ca with its investigative news, great local sites, that kind of thing. >> but -- >> but, the big but is 30% fewer reporters, you haven't had nearly a consummate increase in the new tomorrow. so -- in the new forum. so what you worry about at least in the near term is the coverage of news, particularly at regional papers around the country where the cuts often mean a lack of the kind of yourism that george has championed. the kind of digging, the watchdog, the enterprise journalism that's so important. and it means important beats are
abandoned, and in democracy it just means a lot less information. i'm not saying that the sky is falling and the world's ending, but in the short term that's a real concern. >> you haven't been spared cuts in the newsroom. >> right. >> how have you, as an editor, how is your paper balancing that loss of often the person who's the most highly paid and maybe the one that's most attractive to the financial side to part ways with? how do you balance that as an editor either, you know, just deal with it because of -- [inaudible] or can you prevent it? >> well, the first thing we really had to do was figure out which, um, which positions we needed to save the most. and, um, so some of the -- technology has also given us new ways to cover things that are more efficient. so, for example, 20 years ago, 25 years ago we had 30 people in our library. we had two newspapers with multiple editions, and we had to cut and clip every single article and cross-reference it
and put it in the envelopes and put 'em in these giant envelope-retrieving machines that went up stories so that people could find stories this the past. now nobody does that. that's 30 people that have been replaced by digital around -- archiving. we used to have all sorts of technicians that were needed to fine tune photographs and things like that. and now the computers do that. we used to have whole composing rooms full of people to do layout, and now that's done, um, by our newsroom on the computers. so, um, so a lot of the losses in the staff have been in non-journalist positions. and then -- but we have lost journalist positions, i'm not trying to down play that. but what we really had to decide on what we were going to save, and what we saved the most were the people who were on the street getting the news and information. and news skills like computers
or data mining skills you can get a lot of investigative data now easier than you used to. you don't always have to drive down to the courthouse and ask a clerk to open files and then photocopy them for hours -- >> i think a fair amount of that still goes on. >> there is some of that. [inaudible conversations] >> but so much more of it's available digitally now. and, you know, that makes you a lot more efficient. so it isn't, it isn't, it isn't like we've lost 30% of our reporters. now, but on the other hand there's been vast cut all around. and so this is everybody cutting. so there's far fewer reporters covering madison and politics in madison now than there was because everybody's cut. there's, when we go to some really important state meetings like our state natural resources board that sets policy for environmental and wildlife things, we're often the only
news outlet that's there at those meetings. that's scary. >> a quick survey in the room, show of hands, how many of you in your respective vocations have a journalist assigned full time to coverage of your area? there's one, two, three, four, five. okay. >> can i say something -- >> yeah, sure. and i think we have a microphone coming so that we can be heard both in the room and on c-span. >> how many used to? >> yeah. what was it like ten years ago? >> well, i thought they were going to disappear, but we do have them, but they're increasingly young and inexperienced. >> okay. >> and they rotate off their beats very quickly. and so what we're dealing with is even when we get assigned reporters, they don't stay very long, and they come in extremely unknowledgeable about the legal system. >> you know, i will tell you in our justice and journalism program which began in the '99, when we began to -- usually you have about a dozen judges and journalists by circuit on the federal level. the easiest thing to do was get
12 veteran courthouse reporters to come in and sit and talk to the judges. by the time we were about two-thirds of the way through that, i could count on one veteran reporter being there who'd been covering the courts for more than -- and veteran being five years. and after that it was parachuting in this or multibeats or the so-called justice beat where they were covering police on one day and a trial on the next. you know, electronic journalism, television, radio now the web has dealt with that probably more than print. print has the luxury of assigning somebody. it wasn't all that uncommon to find a reporter having to parachute into the court. >> i think that's always been the case. i mean, i covered the courts for the san jose mercury. i don't remember someone from tv, ask we're talking over 20 years ago. >> the, um, one thing i would -- i don't know everyone's individual situation, and a lot of this will depend on the size of your county, um, or your
community, um, of what kind of experience level your reporters are likely to have. but i would really encourage people, one of the tendencies folks have is to get very defensive with reporters and to give out as little information as possible. and, um, i'd really encourage you to develop those relationships even with a young, inexperienced reporters and help teach 'em what you know about the legal system. and really, you know, they're usually very intelligent young people, and if you can really help 'em through, they want to get it right. and most cases where we've gotten a story wrong we -- i think weaver making, actually, fewer mistakes than we used to probably because we kept the right people in a lot of cases. but when we have made mistakes or have had to run another story to clarify something because we didn't get it all right or something like that, it's often been the case where the source or sources were so defensive
that they were so afraid to talk that they never, they never clarified the issue to the point where we fully understood the issue. and so that's what led to the, um, problem to given with. -- to begin with. so i think the vast majority of the people you're dealing with will be people of goodwill, and if you can help them learn about what you know, it'll really -- they can learn things very quickly. >> and we did hear from a lot of the judges who participated over that range of programs that that creditability with a reporter that they knew was very important to them. and they were a lot more reluctant to talk to somebody they didn't know or somebody who's only been there for a short time. so, you know, t interesting in the flow -- it's interesting in the flow of information. it wasn't just i know a fact, here it is. it was do i talk to you about it, how much do i tell you? a lot of people were backing off, so inadvertently contributing to less information, maybe, getting out.
>> i wrote a chapter for a book about coverage of columbine, and one of the things that i learned was one of the tv stations there -- and i thought this was a really good idea -- they would have, like, the pio officer for the police or some policeman come and spend the day with them to see what their pressures were, what their job was like so that the police, you know, whoever the reporter was going to for information would have a better understanding of how the news business works and then vice versa. so really sort of get to know each other's job so that you would understand what the pressures are. and, you know, i think it's a very generally maybe not in your situation, but, you know, a reporter/policeman is often a very adversarial relationship, and it doesn't need to be. and everybody's just doing their job. >> the group introduced themselves to each other this morning before this panel, and i
was struck by the number of people who mentioned those hot, big, giant media trials that we've all seen come up with increasing frequency, it seems. but let me go to a little example to pose my next question. my older son, ryan, was visiting us where we live in nashville. he's from out of town. he was driving to my office. he came on a police blockade near the vanderbilt university campus. that was probably ten blocks from my office. by the time he arrived at my office, he knew why it had been block candidated which was a suspicious -- blockaded which was a suspicious package at a hotel. he knew the package had been found not to be an explosive device. the story had kind of come and gone in the course of ten blocks. he was stuck for a moment and had time to tweet and got that all the way through. so we tend to think of these, the new media explosion and the
new media use on the big stories, but there was a fairly ordinary story, obviously, that turned out not to be newsworthy in the largest sense, and yet he knew about it. so i'm going to ask with that as a backdrop plus the mega trials, how has 24/7, instant media made this business different? for good or bad? >> it's made it different in a lot of ways and in both ways, i think. sort of of your example, the fact that, you know, it reflect back that you can instantaneously learn about all kinds of things whether it's at vanderbilt or it's in egypt. and, you know, you hear a lot about citizen journalism which has, you know, tremendous upsides in terms of getting information out. it has a real risk in that, you know, a lot of it isn't necessarily confirmable, and you don't know what spin is it is. nevertheless, a huge amount of information that comes out
quickly. and just in general, news organizations have changed in years at morning newspapers. there was always a rule if somebody covered a story at ten in the morning, it seemed like a law that they couldn't start writing until four in the afternoon because sometimes they were just making file calls, but mostly they were, you know, it wasn't deadline yet. and now you have a world where, you know -- [laughter] >> i remember those days. >> we're being punished for our sins. now you cover the thing, and you better tweet about it, and then you write a blog post, and then maybe you post some video. and then maybe you actually write a full-fledged story for the next day's paper. but the upside is there's a lot whether it's on a local or national story, you have tons of information really quickly. and you have access to it which, you know, which pre-internet you didn't have. so, you know, i think we all have gotten spoiled with this. i know i get very frustrated if there's not an update on a web site every two seconds. [laughter] so for a news consumer, it's
very exciting. the downside is they're particularly competitive stories, and you see it a lot in washington, there's a lot of, you know, there are a lot of new players in the political world. and there's a tremendous premium, and on other stories, too, financial stories with announcements on bloomberg that place a tremendous premium on getting it first. this is not brand new. for two years we had the ap and epi where you'd be in trouble if you were two seconds behind the other. so this is kind of reinventing the old. but now it's like on steroids. so the downside of that is the pressure is to get something up and get it up quickly, and be, yes, you can update it and add nuance, but the potential to have shallow reporting or just wrong reporting is really huge. we did a big piece on bloomberg whose growth has been fascinating, and a lot of it's terrific. they're covering a lot of government agencies that nobody -- certainly almost nobody does.
but a very distinguished reporter left them because he said because of this tremendous premium on get it fast, get it first that he felt that most of his own work just wasn't very interesting. so i think there's that tension, and it really puts a premium on being careful not to get it wrong. >> that was once the province of the electronic side of broadcast ers. as you said, rem, didn't have the technology to deliver it up. i remember a state senator in indiana when, really, the first electronic news gathering stuff came up. this guy walked over and said, great, now you can screw it up faster. [laughter] and that was sort of his assessment of the value of getting it out quick. but broadcasters have with it now -- dealt with it now for some time. newspapers, a whole new world of having the tweet, blog, post, video, whatever. >> i think ten, not even quite
ten years ago on september 11th, um, we were still putting out extras and putting them on the streets with hawkers using wire services as our primary source of information. um, that's, it seems like ancient history today. we'll never do an extra print edition again. you know? and, um, i think rem hit it on the head. there's, um, there's good and bad to this. a lot of good, and, um, and the bad, i think, is actually an opportunity for us to apply that credibility. and one of the most interesting things we've seen with twitter which is the place for breaking news, period, um, is the -- we don't -- it used to be, um, if someone beat you by a few seconds or a few minutes or something like that to the story, well, it's their story, and shame on you, you should be embarrassed for getting beat. people would come at you with that type of attitude.
that's gone. seems to me when we go into twitter, they don't care if we're first that much as long as once we get there, we're trustworthy. >> really? >> then we start coming to us, and we can create a hash tag and drive people to us. there's good and bad, so a great example, last year, um, like a lot of places in the country we had some torrential rain pours last summer and big floods, flash flooding type stuff. so there was a big storm. what are the chances, i think this happened about 7:00 at night, a storm sewer below a street was washed out and made the land above it unstable. what should the chances of a reporter or -- what are the chances of a reporter or photographer from our intersection being at that corner the moment a cadillac escalade fell into a 10-foot hole? what are the chances of someone else being there with a
smartphone camera? because our reporters and our breaking news hub and editors are on twitter and because they had created a hash tag called brew city flood that everyone was going to, as soon as that guy posted his video of the escalade 10 feet down in the hole, which was about five minutes after he personally helped the guy out of the hole that was the driver of the truck, we had it on our web site as our lead photo because we were there with him. and we got that. so there's a credible source of information from whoever's at the event can tell you about it instantly. um, on the other hand, you have a congresswoman getting shot and many be news outlets reporting that she's been killed when that isn't true by the same rush to the truth. in bloomberg's case you can almost justify it because the old buy on rumor, sell on truth or sell on facts, sell on the
story where in the financial industry with day trading and everything else, sometimes a rumor's all you need. you don't really need it to be factual. but in our world you need it to be factual, and i think sometimes what we tell our beat reporters is if a rumor out there, just get out there and say, yeah, we know what you're hearing, we're hearing it too, but we haven't confirmed it or found out that it's not true yet. stay tiewnd. and people really seem to appreciate that. >> that latter part is very significant. >> yeah. >> there was just a recent sort of flap on twitter, that sounds awfully bad to me, but over reports that piers morgan had been suspended, i believe, by cnn as a result of the whole information investigation in grease britain and the phone hacking thing involving murdoch and news corp.. there was a discussion of that later, rem, you commented on this, in which a reporter said it's fine. we talk about those things in the newsroom all the time.
hey, did you hear. and can it's fine to tweet that -- and it's fine to tweet that. saw no problem with doing that because, well, we talk about those things in the newsroom all the time, and tweeting is just letting people know what we're talking about in the newsroom. but it gained a foothold and gained major credibility by simply being tweeted. rem, you wrote about that. ..
>> you know, that leads to some of the complaints and problems that people see in journalism. we'll go to your questions in just a minute. if you raise the hand, we have the technique, the mike will come to you. we'll go to your question in just a second. what about that idea, if you can, let you respond to that tweet, because it's a find of a
rumor, it's kind of interesting. we need to be first or out there so people will follow us? is that what's driving this? >> i think that one of the questions that we should ask is why does it matter? or i mean there's a lot of trivialization of the news on twitter. so what if your son knew within ten seconds. to me, it equalizes all events. you know, i would like -- the majority of tweets actually are people passing links, according to some of the founders of twitter. they are not really commenting on things there. so i think that is good. you can go to source, look at the source and see. but i think it's really dangerous just to put something out there. if you use twitter, you know, be very careful with it. because i had an experience at npr, which made me, i was embarrassed, i teach media ethics at georgetown, where an
npr intern was shot last summer on her way -- yeah, she was stabbed in the back, i'm sorry, on her way to work. and i saw on twitter someone said morning edition producer stabbed. i just did a direct response on twitter and said, it's not. it was an intern. i think she's okay. she's on her way to the hospital. two hours later i get a call, and i'm independent of mpr, i get a call, please stop acting like a spokesman. someone had taken the tweet and turned it into a piece, a blog piece and sent that out on twitter and used me as the source. you have to be -- just think anything can and will be used against you. [laughter] >> and be very, very careful with social media. i could give hundreds of examples of where it comes back to bite you. >> we'll go to some questions. and microphone there.
if you just tell us who you are, and where you are from, that would be great. >> and what your twitter name is. [laughter] >> dick, from the administrative office of the u.s. courts. rem, you mention that there is a development that some news organization are identified with a certain ideology, or political slant, it occurs to me that some of these are those who are making -- who have pretty good revenue flows, and are very popular. a hundred years ago when i studied journalism history, i seem to remember that that's how journalism got its start in this country. every news organization had it's own political slant. you had to buy six penny newspapers to figure out what was going on in the real world. do you see this development or this return to this type of journalism as a plus, minus, and i can't remember from my journalism days what -- what was
behind the demise of that kind of journalism back in colonial times. >> well, you are right. there's kind of a back to the future aspect of this. it goes back and not just -- a lot more recently than colonial times where we had this. over time though, business model evolved where appealing to a broader swath of people made business sense. it's the under pinning of the objective to use the world feeble, but the independent journalism that's not wedded to an ideology came about. i think it's an unfortunately development, whatever the history to go back to that. because i think as i mention, it's kind of -- it leads to what we have just seen in the debt ceiling business, and what's dominated our politics in recent years. we have a whole lot of people that don't talk to each other, and only hear what they want to hear. that makes dialogue very, very difficult. but as you also point out, it's
a good business model. i don't think fox news and msnbc are going to unilaterally disarm any time soon. [laughter] >> david fellers, also from washington, d.c. you've talked about the cataclysmic changes in your industry, what might you expect from government, public affairs people? whether it's the courts or the department of health or whatever, that we might do to help meet you halfway, perhaps, to make your jobs easier? >> well, i think, the judiciary, if you look at the branches of government, has been much slower to respond to the new media environment. in a way, obviously, the executive and legislative branches run for election,
they've been much more comfortable with outreach. you know, i suspect if we had an equivalent gathering from both the executive and legislative branches compared to the public information officers numbers here, we'd have to meet in a much larger room. it was somewhat of a stationary target, you put out schedules, hearings and things that are there to be covered. where the other branches are often more fluid. so i think there seems to be over the course of our ten years, now actually almost twelve years, more of an awareness from your side to get that story out. you really aren't the shopkeeper now who can count on people coming into the store because they need to buy. you need to go out and advertise, or at least tell the story a little more. so i think any of those efforts that we've heard about a little bit in some earlier sessions of
going out, reaching out to the public more, making documents available online to make up for perhaps some reduced resources on the news side seems to be an interesting thing. the difficulty, of course, will news organization take advantage of those new tools, is there an audience for -- in the -- i guess in the end? >> there's definitely an audience for public records. and putting -- getting public records up in a digital format that is easily accessible, there's a great desire for that. when we put them up as databases and our web site to help the public, they are very strongly utilized. some of them get huge numbers of page views, people use them for all different reasons. business reasons, personal reasons, knowledge. so i would really encourage everyone to continue moving along those lines of digitizing the records and getting them up, available to the public. they belong to the public. people can use them in a lot of
ways, most of them positive ways. the -- most of what we're talking about though, really, i think, hasn't changed the basics of what we do. the business models that disrupt it. but i think the same rules that have always applied in telling a truthful, honest, factual story still do. and i think that the information from the public officers who i thought were the most effective over the years were the ones who realized that they couldn't control the political leadership, political leaders come and go. and different parties come into office and out of office. but the one thing that they could control. they couldn't necessarily control scandals.
that wasn't within their power to control. what they could control was their own relationship and own credibility. and the public information officers that really shined and i thought were extremely effective were the ones that built relationships and were -- and became knowledgeable as credible sources of information and were always honest. if they couldn't say something because it would get their crooked boss in trouble, they just wouldn't say anything. but they wouldn't lie. i think -- i think those old rules still apply. >> i have just one piece of advise, which i learned from an fbi agent at a hostage situation, which is feed this shark, or the shark will feed itself. and so the more that you are, you know, open war at least providing some information. that's what i meant by understanding the role of the reporter. you know, if particularly in this, you know, i've got to have it now, we're going live in five
minutes or something like that. you know, finding credible -- or providing credible information on a speedy basis is really critical. >> you talked from the beginning about what's better and what's worse in this current climate. one the things that's really a huge plus is the accessibility of public records and documents like this. they are available on web sites and that the public can see them. and you can link their link to from stories. so you can really see kind of the basis for a story. and that's -- i mean that's -- the accessibility of that kind of public information is -- >> that's a good point. whenever we do a court decision, we link to all of the court opinions. including the minority opinions. they are all there. what a great resource that is. >> but i do think it poses an ethical issue for news outlets, just because we can, should we? for instance, gene, you probably
know more about this, one the tennessee papers posted all of the names of the gun owners who had -- yeah, who legally were allowed to carry a gun. you know, so you could go online through the newspaper and find that. you could go to the courthouse and look it up. but this caused a lot of problem. people felt their rights were violated. suddenly sleepovers weren't allowed because that person has a gun. i just think there needs to be some thought to linking. now i'm not quite clear on this, but can you go to a courthouse and get the names of jurors? >> well, expect for one case in florida, where it's going to be october. >> right, so in that case, do you link to the names of jurors? i think that's an ethical question that a news organization needs to think about and talk about. and what is the good, what is their purpose, what's an alternative? so, you know, just because you can, should you? it's an important thing. >> let's for a moment look at
that casey anthony trial. >> no. [laughter] >> speaking for a lot of americans. but in this sense the judge in that case decided to temporarily not disclose if i'm saying it properly, disclose the name of jurors and put it under seal until about october. in doing that, he both, i believe in the order and in comments to the lawyers in the courtroom, at least as it was reported, just basically hashed and slashed at the media coverage of that trial. and, in fact, called for changes in florida's public records laws saying it's time to evaluate what we make public or not in a state that has had a strong tradition and a strong law on open public records. i was struck by that. because you really have an official who in some ways made
rulings very favorable to open the jury in the trial. there was at least a judgment early on, he was balancing the access versus the right to a fair trial. then at the end of the trial looks at this and says the excessive, somewhat trivial, trivializing kinds of coverage moving him in a very different direction. we had on public records, you know this, practical obscurity, open record, in a dusty book down in some archive. and only people who maybe were recording land transfers and divorces would come and look. the public really didn't get that information. at a very time when we can be more responsive as an industry, put more information up, they got a lot of flak for posting the gun records. we did a program on it, both sides, the newspaper points out that there were fellows identified who had wrongly gotten gun permits, we also had
a gentleman who said his wife who was handicap, they kept a gun there when he was gone for longs periods of time he feared for her safety. now every felon knows exactly what kind of weapon is in their house. what is for these folks, being more transparent and open and what are we doing with it? responsibility or doing the casey anthony trial that drives them to say enough. enough. what's happening with the new opportunity, the new challenge. >> we as always is a big term. you got to make distinctions. >> fair. >> "tmz" handles things differently than "new york times" on "milwaukee centennial." it's classic that goes back into other platforms that is really important now. that's the question of just
because we can do it, should we do it? there's no -- just because it's out there, you don't have the -- it doesn't mean you can't make that judgment. the problem is it's so different now, there's so many more players in the game, they are very often your individual judgment will fly in the face of everybody else who's posted the thing. >> right. >> and after a while, you know, do you kind of look silly when 90% of the news sites have named somebody? >> even in the dsk case. that's a perfect example, everyone knew who she was. >> exactly. we used to have a system in the prehistoric days where a handful of mainstream and national news, handful of mainstream news institutions would kind of decide almost make individual choices, and kind of decide whether something was going to be out there or not. and they are the gate keeper is
long gone. in many ways, that's a good thing. nobody died and made the gate keepers god. but at the same time, it means all bets are off. what do you do once person identifies the maid in that case? you know, it expands dramatically, the range of dilemma's really. >> i'd be really worried about throwing the baby out with the bath water. in a lot of these cases, there's a lot of out rage and people being angry. what real harm had been done? if there was harm done, what can be done to prevent that specific type of harm from happening again, rather than closing off a whole bunch of records. because we've had that happen and in our state where for privacy issues, for example, it was popular for the legislature to pass laws making it harder to
get records, because people were worried about identity theft and things like that. well, the unintended consequence was we went to do a story on finding out which appraisers were in cohoots with bad mortgage brokers in the financial -- leading the financial crisis by giving false appraisals, and leading to all of this damage we're still going through today from mortgages going to people who should have never gotten mortgages on houses that should have never been paid that kind of money for. we couldn't get those records because of privacy laws that has been passed. we could get them on the mortgage brokers. that was regulatorred on a agency that wasn't covered, but not on the appraisers they were in cohoots with. what worries me, the more you see a loss, the more likely it is that they, wrongdoing that can't be exposed and will never come out because of that.
>> i don't think we're talking about sealing off things. i think we're talking about asking the questions within -- >> what gene was talking about was are they going to pass a new law in florida that takes a bunch of things private because of casey anthony. i worry about people overreacting. have any jurors been harmed? the ones that have spoken publicly have explained their decision well. >> two or three went public. the others have not yet. >> yeah. one the things i recall, you speaking of the prehistoric days -- do we have a question? good. let's go to that. >> hi, my name is jennifer leeward, i'm from arizona. you touched on the investigative and watchdog reporting, i'm curious how often or how many stories do you feel have to be, i guess, dug out in order to
find a legitimate story that there was misuse? because i do see a lot of news reporter going into that investigative. you have to do a lot of research in order to find that one story which can then consume the time of the agency as they are searching for the, you know, misuse. how would you recommend we handle those kinds of requests knowing that maybe 90% of them probably won't lead anywhere? >> that's a good question. the -- what i think -- what we've -- well, what's really worked well with us in the past, when we have run into people that are worried they are being overwhelmed by open records request, for example is just pick up the phone and talk to us, or, you know, let's work this out and say, okay, what's responsible. you know, we are not trying to put on -- sometimes what happens is you clarify the request and
make it a lot more sis sing and focus and narrow the request to make it easier and easier to deal with. i think the more you can establish those types of relationships where you can talk back and forth and say, okay, how can -- this is going to take too much time. you are not going to get this for three months. that doesn't do you any good, it doesn't do me any good. what can we do about this? usually if you -- you can work out a much more focused request. i do think that the problem is -- and i -- i can see it, rem can see it. there's of different definitions of what watchdog is too. some people kind of will put that label on things and look for things that i don't really think merit it. they are just -- and maybe misuse it a little bit. that's, you know, part of the nature of the beast too. but in our case, we're trying to
do real -- pretty sophisticated reporting that really get to the truth. we're going to -- if it's not there, we're not going to continue. >> the problems at the outset, you just don't know that. that's why it can lead to what seems like wasted time on your end. it maybe a tip that doesn't pan out, or maybe more nuanced and not really be a story. it's hard out of the gate to know. >> it's funny because a lot of reasons why people don't do investigative reporting is that it's time consuming and expensive. i hadn't thought about it from the other side. >> what -- who knew there was another side? >> here they are. [laughter] >> hi, i'm katherine from indiana. my concern is that once with declining numbers in the news room, once that investigation has started it doesn't sort of matter what's found. it has to be a story when you
have spent three weeks looking for record. the most minor point that isn't a watchdog story and so nuanced has to be a story. >> yeah, i think the hardest job for an editor is often the call not to run a story, rather than just go ahead and let it empty or put it in the paper or on the air. >> the questioner is right. on in climate, this is the medium-sized paper and big investment of the period. it's hard to say we devoted two reporters for this for four months and wash our hands. it's absolutely the best thing you can do. >> again, i think to echo what's been said about the -- about working and talking back and forth. i remember early in my career, when we did an investigation involving gambling and local officials. we went at it two fronts, trying to get public information records available and just sort of shoe leather knocking on doors. it happened that when we finally got the documents, we had wasted
the shoe leather. there wasn't a story there. we had gotten resistance to getting, in those days back in the '70s, getting that information from the office holders, report holders. i think if we'd had that kind of dialogue early on, it wouldn't have consumed our time, wouldn't probably have consumed as much of their time to produce the documents or resisting at first and then producing them. one the solutions is the idea of talking back and forth early on to do whatever you can. >> what a novel idea. >> yeah, right. communications. [laughter] >> often not the greatest strength in either of our fields, i think. >> gene. >> yes? >> over here. >> great. >> ron keefe from kansas. my question is who is a journalist? over, i'm trying to come up with a rule for my appellate supreme court on letting journalist tweet from the courtroom. you know, under our camera rule,
which permits journalist to do that, my problem now is who's a journalist? you know, is every blogger out there a journalist? and who's checking their facts then? >> but the first amendment doesn't specifically protect the press. it does, but it also protects the public. so somewhere could go in your courtroom and sit there and tweet as a member of the public. right? you couldn't prevent them from doing that. you could? oh no cell phone, or you can't bring that in. yeah. >> you talked on my first amendment answer, you are a journalist when you say you are. to start out with a circulation or term of employment or audience size. you know, if you go to audience size, you've got a web site. but there's going to be some places that don't have them that have been in the news business for 50 years that have smaller
than the chris matthew bunny slippers that has a million hits during the week. at least a functional definition. are you conveying news and information to the public. if you can start there, i would ask you. rather than circulation or employer or traditional kinds of coverage. but it's going to produce numbers these days. particularly in high profile trials. should we call it a variety of reports. >> and if there's certain limitations like on space, for example, if you have a small courtroom, then i think that the -- you know, it's an imperfect solution. but you can almost throw the ball over to the media organization and say you guys come up with a pool system, you figure it out. we don't like it, the -- we've had to deal with it in a lot of different situations. it's hard to make those decisions. sometimes you have to kind of throw the ball into their court. >> i think the questioner
touches on something that's really a fascinating issue. the definition of what's a journalist has changed enormously, and continues to change. there was the traditional reaction of the traditional media, against the chris matthew's pancakes. i think the next person that talks about bloggers in their pajamas should go to jail. there was the circling -- >> they need to have a trial before it. >> you are so old school. [laughter] >> but i think we have seen, you know, as the system matures and there are a lot of bloggers who actually do reporting. and there are a lot of them who don't. but it's -- when there's the whole citizen journalism question, the person is a citizen, but they go to their township meeting every week. it's -- i don't think it was the answer from the beginning, work anymore. >> i think this is a follow up. there was discussion about when you have an advocacy group which
is clearly advocacy, we had a militia that was filming in court that wouldn't have been under the media rules allowed to do that. then we asked ourselves, does it matter? how can we address that? right now we are looking at the medium, not the person. if you are allowed to be there and anybody else can tweet or broadcast and then we can't limit you. we can know that you are doing it, and require you to get a court permission, just so that we know. that's a really hard call when so many people are out there doing it. and do you have any comment on any way that we could deal with that? it ended up being a case that's now in federal court, because they were trying to kill judges. so it was sort of a serious case. >> well, that does put a slice on it. [laughter] >> but, you know, again i think if you go back to colonial period through the late 1800s,
there was journals with opinion, highly partisan, they very often reflected only a certain point of view in the ultimate reporting. no me tensive activity. i think that's what a free press really has in mind. the gate keepers changed in part. to get to the most people, you reported views to get to the biggest audience. we are seeing another turn in that wheel. i think again look to what's the purpose of it. really from the users or severs stand point, the video done from surf pocket or whatever they can do over the phone.